Agenda item

The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Children and Families and the Director of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding had been invited to the meeting to provide an update on the outcome of the Ofsted Inspection of Local Authority Children’s Services which had taken place in June 2019.

The Chairman acknowledged that a great deal of progress had been made since the last Ofsted inspection in November 2016 and welcomed the improvements that had been made.  However, she asked that the discussion focussed on the challenges that remained.

The Director of Children’s Social Care and Safeguarding introduced the report by way of a presentation.  She made the following main points:

·       The 2016 Ofsted report had exposed widespread serious failings in the service and the Authority had been judged to be at the lower end of the ‘inadequate’ bracket.  Following the 2019 inspection, Ofsted had been clear that the service was at the top end of the ‘requires improvement’ range and inspectors had been very complimentary about the pace of change and the degree that change had been embedded at the same time as the Authority was developing an Alternative Delivery Model (Worcestershire Children First).

·       The Service was judged to ‘require improvement to be good’ in all areas.  It was important to emphasise that the improvement in the service was a phenomenal achievement, which was the result of 2½ years’ work by every member of staff.  The Chairman of the Panel agreed that this fantastic work was recognised by the Panel.

·       In response to a question about whether the Service was surprised to be judged as ‘requiring improvement’ in all areas, the CMR replied that, although there was an outstanding leadership team in place, the judgement on ‘the impact of leaders on social work practice’ was also about the wider partnership leadership, including district councils and CCGs.

·       There was a need for full consistency of practice across all staff and stability of management would help with this.  Information was now available to allow managers to drill down to individual social worker level to identify where improvement in practice was needed.  This would allow trends to be identified at an early stage.

·       Joint commissioning of mental health services had not yet resulted in a clear pathway or priority of intervention for children in care or care leavers. Members were informed about a task and finish group which had recommended that Looked After Children should be given priority for mental health services.  The service was now being re-commissioned so this change could be made.

·       There remained an issue with evidencing early help in some schools.  Schools needed to show how they were working with children and record how many children were involved, information that was needed by the Local Authority.  It was suggested that some schools did not recognise this as their role, even though it was included in legislation.  The Service would continue to work with all partners on this, including specific conversations with schools.  The Service was also looking to develop a bespoke ‘outcome star’ (an evidence-based tool for measuring and supporting change when working with people).

·       It was confirmed that Ofsted had not been able to assess the Edge of Care Service as it was not yet operational.

·       The issue of homelessness amongst 16- and 17-year olds was raised.  It was suggested that district councils were not able to help with housing as the young people were not yet adults but, at the same time, they did not want to be looked after in care.  It was important to offer a reasonable choice of provision to young people, but it was acknowledged that the Service was not there yet.  It was suggested that District Councillors could have some influence in encouraging registered social landlords to offer provision to young people.  The County Council was looking to grow its supported board and lodging service to offer semi-independent living for young people leaving care.  However, this was not without challenge as the young people concerned were often going through difficult times and may exhibit difficult behaviours.

·       When a placement was in danger of breaking down, a consolidation meeting would be held to identify any problems.  A disruption meeting would be held after a child had left a placement.  Ofsted had recommended that the Authority should hold timely disruption meetings in order to learn from the breakdown of placements and, although this was something that other authorities did, the Service felt that these meetings after the event were less useful than a timely consolidation meeting.  A mechanism would be put in place to address the Ofsted recommendation.

·       A question was asked about the quality of information passed on when a child moved from one placement to another.  The Director acknowledged that the care provider would need to know the level of risk involved but expressed concern that too much detail may result in a child being ‘labelled’.

·       Members were informed that the County was shortly due to be the subject of a Joint Targeted Area Inspection with a focus on children living with mental health issues.

·       In response to a question about how other Councils worked with housing providers, Members were informed that there was no magic answer.  Often success was related to the shape and influence of partners.  The County Council had a working group which met with housing providers to discuss provision.  This related to a small cohort of very challenging young people who were difficult to place.  It was suggested that there was a need to access the private landlord market and this may be something that district councils could help with.

·       Concern was expressed that lack of funding had led to the potential closure of St Basils in Rubery, a successful project providing housing support for young people.

·       It was suggested that, from the perspective of Children’s Services more accommodation was needed.  This was an area of focus for the Corporate Parenting Board.

·       In the light of the Ofsted report, a ‘Plan on a Page’ had been developed which would act as the Business Improvement Plan for the Service.  It was agreed that this would be circulated to Members of the Panel.

In conclusion, the CMR expressed concern that partners were not always working to shared objectives.  At Corporate Parenting Board, it would be important to change the question from ‘what will you do’ to ‘what can I do’.  This was especially important for district councils in relation to leisure, housing and council tax.